I think the speech has the potential of making some voters feel better about Mormonism, but I overal<l wonder: People who object to Romney's faith tend to think that Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. Would they then be comfortable with Romney's general religious background influencing him? I am doubtful, as I feel the core of Romney's argument was founded on his reassuring voters that he would put Christianity's moral groundings in public life.

Full analysis of the speech and its consequences: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/romney-promises-to-put-faith-in-his.html

This is a good review; the pundicts are at it again.

That was superb!  We are electing a President, not a religious leader.  It was very cogent, clement, and to the point.  This is the kind of leader we need; someone who will not leave his religious convictions because of polls.  Clinton thinks by polls, Romney by thinks by morals and conviction.  Huckabee only likes some religion while Romney is in support of religion because it makes a nation greater.  His quotes of Adams backed that very well.  Everything Mitt Romney touches prospers!

Mitt Romney just won my vote.  

That was very petty of Sullivian.

Clearly in the first instance Romeny was speaking about there being a plurality of religions and having a litmus test is not necessary to serve; in the second he feels SOME form of faith is necessary to lead this country. The two ideas are not incompatible

The speech may not hurt Huckabiuliani, but it's not going to help their team efforts in the early states.

It may be overshadowed by stories on kinfolk to a murder victim blaming Huckabee for a Missouri killing.

C'mon Mr. Sullivan, you know you took that comment out of context.  The entire speech was focused on how Romney IS a person of faith, but his personal convictions and religious persuasions and affiliations will NOT determine political decisions.  That is simply poor, yellow journalism.

Well, the more interesting question is the relationship of secular society to religion, not 'faith' in the abstract. We're still basically a secular society. The question he seems to 'answer' might be the wrong question. You have to ask what the trend to secularism brings.

Andrew Sullivan has it all wrong.  Saying "We need to have a person of faith lead the country" is in no way opposite of the first quote.  It's not a flip-flop.

He was speaking in the more recent quote about being all-inclusive and not judging a candidate by which faith he chooses.

In the February quote, he is speaking to the need to have someone of faith as leader.  He did not say "We need to have a Mormon"  he did not say "We need to have a Methodist" he simply said "of faith"... which is completely in sync with his other statement.

Someone was trying to hard to find a flip-flop I think.  Nice try, Mr. Sullivan.

I do agree that he left out Agnosticism, though I don't feel offended by it.  I simply think it fell outside of the scope of the point he was trying to make.

And as far as Atheism goes...  "No Faith"?  I think Atheism is technically a faith.  Agnostics who shrug and say "who knows, who cares?" have no faith.  Atheists believe that there is no god... believing in something that can neither be proven or disproven scientifically = faith. :P

Sullivan-
It doesn't seem to me that Romney is flip-flopping on faith. I interpret those two statements as saying no person should be accepted or rejected based solely on their religion, but Romney believes a religious person (of any kind) should lead our country.

What Romney has done by giving a speech on faith and by calling himself a Christian has been to send me and many other evangelicals scurrying to the internet, searching out basic Mormon beliefs and tenets, and the news isn't good-for Romney. Why? Because if you obscure, mask, lie,or attempt to deceive the public about your most important and most deeply-held relationship, with God, how can we trust  anything that comes out of your mouth? We did not ask for this speech;it was thrust upon us. We simply have evaluated it and found it to be lacking.

If some have questioned his faith because he is a Mormon, why don't they also question Obama's? Is it because Christian Conservative Republicans have values and high standards while most liberal democrats have none?

Andrew Sullivan missed the point of Romney's speech. He was saying that having faith is important to a person being elected to the office of President. The aggregate of how his faith is what defines him, though, not the faith itself. Your Muslim neighbor probably has similar beliefs to you, while Osama Bin Laden probably does not. The same thing applies when comparing a Christian skinhead to a Christian moderate. Although Romney's faith might differ from yours, he probably has very similar core values to what you believe. So the aggregate of what his faith is what defines him and should be weighed, not the faith itself.

I am almost positive that he(Romney) would not suggest atheists should be allowed into office.

Funny thing is that most atheists would have more in common with our founding fathers (who were deists) than evangelical nutbags have in common with our founding fathers.

Look it up, our founding fathers were deists. They did not believe in a personal God (the God of Christianity, the God that talks to you, and metals in affairs i.e. Pat Robertson claiming the amount of homosexuals in America has something to do with terror attacks or natural dissasters).

Conclusion, because of the religious nonsense that currently exists in America due to all of the fear and propoganda in the media following 9/11, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE ELECTED TO OFFICE IN PRESENT DAY AMERICA.

This truly is not the country they envisioned. Thank you to all of the ignorant Christians out there for ruining our countries. By the way, your overly emotional and bigoted fixation on abortion and homosexuality turns out to be a little less important than things like...oh I don't know... WAR ... or the economy.

Good job guys. You screwed it up again. Do us all a favor and stay home next year.

Did you guys even watch the speech? He just said freedom and religion go hand in hand - that you can't have one without the other. Why then would he include agnostics/atheists, i.e., those without religion? It would undermine his entire position? He practically based his entire speech on the premise that America's loss of religion, and the corresponding numbers of non-religious people, directly threaten the country's ability to remain free. I'm not suggesting that he's right or wrong, only that it was no oversight that he failed to include agnostics/atheists - he purposely did NOT include them because they apparently are the products of a decaying, increasingly immoral nation.

The Red letter Believers have an evangelical's perspective.

Go to http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007/12/romney-speaks-out.html

to read this thoughtful reaction to an honest display of faith

"the failure to mention agnostics and atheists was an oversight... The thrust of the speech was that all believers are good, all believers are Americans. That's a nice sentiment and its message of inclusion would encompass Hindus. But would it encompass non-believers? I'm sure Romney himself would say it would if asked."

No, he would be very annoyed at being asked & would evade the issue as much as possible.  Because he probably doesn't feel that non-believers are as "good" and "American" as are believers, but can't come right out & say it.  But he risks the ire of the Christian right he's pandering to w/this speech if he says non-believers are as good as believers.  They don't wanna hear from that!

(spoken BTW by a believer, but without the pinheaded political views of some of my cohorts)

Have only heard bits and pieces from the speech. Did he mention The Church of GoreBull Warming?

I grow tired of republicans committed to "America's values" That is just a buzz phrase that's meant to tell their supporters that they're values are right, and Democrats do not support "America's values"
Just what we need, republicans deciding what "America's values" truly are and are not.

If Romney was ever asked the following question, it would put an end to any questions christians have regarding the mormon faith.  That question is: "Billy Gramham is most generally regarded as one of the most recognizable christian in the world.  When he dies, will he go to heaven according to what Mormons believe?"

I thought the speech was done very well and I am not a supporter of the GOP.  I think the timing was right, and Romney did well for himself.

Gov. Romney speech was absolutely brilliant, elocuent,
passionate, convencing, articulate and full of patriotism.
He look very Presidential, ala John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, it remind me of President Reagan's speech of "tear down this wall" (the Berlin wall).
Religion should NOT be a litmus test for a candidate, unless is a religion that advocates violence, hatred, murder and destruction of the human race or a nation, in particular our own Country.

What a wonderful, inspiring American speech. If you do not support Mitt, pretend for a moment your candidate gave the speech and how you would feel. He reminded me again of why I love this country. Of course, as Americans we must dissect, criticize and belittle. Maybe  we should be inspired to work together and rise above. How can we expect more of our politicians than what we do as citizens. Thank you Mitt for inspiring me to be better and expect more. You have my vote.

I do not believe anything politicians say. His faith does have a conflict of interest. The morman religion states that they are the true religion. They are involed in alot of compaines, how do we know he will not favor his church interests.

"Best political speech of the year?"

We've set the bar awfully low.

Mark,

Would ANY republican consider Sullivan a conservative? Besides taking glee in bashing conservatives and their opinions, what would make ANYONE consider Andrew a conservative?

You'll hvae to pardon me if I pass on the republican view of american values...especially the ones that include war, torture and a steady march backward in civil and legal rights...this is the party who will protect the unborn today and gleefully execute them in 14 years..uh huh great values

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE NOMINATED IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. REPUBLICANS ARE EITHER RELIGIOUS NUTS OR GREEDY WAR MONGERS.

www.mormon.org

I agree Spud. I am a Dem and an athiest, but that doesn't make me immoral. It just means that I don't believe that a snake can talk or that a man built an ark not only big enough to hold 2 of every animal, but that he was able to gather 2 of every species from the 4 corners of the earth, or that someone can walk on water or change that water into wine. The Greeks used to tell similar stories about things they didn't understand. Today we call that Greek Mythology.

To Andrew Sullivan....

To be blunt, Andrew, you are BLIND!!!  Romney is NOT "flip-flopping" when he said earlier that "a person should not be elected because of his faith" and then in his speech today (6 Dec in TX) that "we need to have a person of faith lead the country".  In the first quote he is clearly speaking about a PARTICULAR religion, ie, Baptist, Catholic, Pentacostal or Moromon, etc.  In today's speech his reference to "faith" is OBVIOUSLY referring to the more GENERAL IDEA of having faith in God.  Are you even TRYING to understand what Romney says or do people in the media not do that anymore?  What freaking amazes me is that when I clicked on the hyperlink embedded in your oh so brilliant perception of Romney's speech today I found the following George Orwell quote blazed across the top of YOUR beloved "The Daily Dish"....quote, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle".  Ya think??!?!?!?!?!?  If you are a man of REAL character you would immediately retract your statement and issue an apology to Romney.            

The last thing I want is a REpublican dictating to me what my values should be. First, they are a sorry bunch of bathroom sex addicts.  Second, they are hypocrits! Third, since when should gov't be in the business of telling me what I should value and not value!  Isn't one of the inalienable rights described in the Dec. of Ind. the right to pursue happiness?  Obviously the conservative movement in this country is only happy if forces the rest of us to live like them.  Hmmm, sort of like communism!

Dave, by that do you mean the church of science. We have George's reign of terror for the past 7 years guided by his Christian faith. I'd love to see how effectively an atheist or deist governed based on science and reality. Care to try it out? Oh wait we already did when our nation was founded. It's a shame America has since been hijacked by the diluted and irrational. Pick up a history book.

Regarding Sullivan's quote: There's a difference between a person of faith and a person of a CERTAIN faith.  You're equivocating on "faith" doesn't constitute a flip-flop by Romney.

I think Romney is exceptional.  He should be our leader.

"If some have questioned his faith because he is a Mormon, why don't they also question Obama's?"  Why would you?  He's been a member of the same United Church of Christ congregation for over 20 years.

I find Ed Morrissey's comment about not convincing people "disinclined to vote for Mormons" puzzling.  How exactly could you convince someone that makes a choice on such shallow standards?

Also, the "non-believers" comments from National Review are puzzling as well.  If "non-believers" have a desire to be "grouped", then aren't you now part of a religion?


I choose no label.  Others may want to label me as 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'faithless'.  But those labels are neither fair nor right.  I understand people's desires to be 'included', to feel valued, but it is simply misguided.  To hear a so called conservative be angry or discouraged that he "didn't include" a certain group or another is simply disturbing.  They're basically defining a conservative form of political correctness.  Their comments are just as misguided as liberal feelings about prayer in public because "might offend" someone.

I believe that everyone has their own moral compass to  steer by.  Mitt's use of faith for guidance doesn't mean that we both couldn't end up with the same morality.  We just used different routes.  

    It is unfortunate that the conservative U.S. population is so polarized on this issue of religion and faith, and the non-religious so frightened of it, when there are so many other issues on the table that substantially outrank it. It would seem that once again the process of selecting a President has been reduced to the lowest common denominators of Religion, sex appeal, or lack thereof, charisma, money spent, and the right connections in powerful places.
    There is a war going on in Iraq that isn't being properly dealt with while draining the Bank in the process. There are millions of Americans, and especially children who lack essential medical coverage because the already filthy rich want to get even richer, and anything that remotely smells like an affordable guaranteed medical services plan would compromise that.
    Billions upon billions of dollars are being spent, with billions more being asked for in the search for cures for numerous illnesses and afflictions such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, various cancers, heart desease, and yadda-yadda without any significant break-throughs coming to light. Doesn't that make you just a little suspicious? It certainly makes me suspicious. After all of the money that's been spent on research, precious little has come of it. Why? Perhaps there's no profit in cure, but plenty in treatment? Hmmmm. Makes me wonder.
    Far too many children are recieving inadequate educations, thereby compromising the U.S. ability to remain competitive in a Global economy.
    Departments of Social Services and other groups have so eroded the right of the parent to raise the child that we are now on the verge of creating a second generation of spoiled brat kids without boundaries, or sense of duty and moral responsibility. Parents are afraid to punish their children, or to be strong guides in their lives, because of Ultra-Leftists and Social Workers who get in their way.
    Millions of people are losing their homes due to the Real Estate meltdown, and the sub-prime loan scandal, yet I hear nothing of the criminal element who sucked these people in to begin with being subject to prosecution for what are, or should be obvious crimes and fraudulent acts. Same goes for the Credit Card industry.
    Crime, both property and violent is increasing in leaps and bounds without any restraint. Why are people committing these crimes? Especially the violent ones?
    Why aren't government and business leaders coming to the realization that people are now so stressed financially, with job security, with medical coverage, with increased war costs, higher taxes, and in the case of men fighting for there own family rights, so diminished in the eyes of the law and courts that the only avenues left to them are criminal and/or violent as outlets for their senses of loss and inadequacy.
    I'm surprized we haven't heard violent horror story upon violent horror story about those who have lost not only homes they had dreamed of owning, but their credit ratings and everything else, including in some cases, marriages and families. I'd like to know who's successfully keeping the lid on those stories.
    I've spoken with numerous Americans who are far more concerned with the perception of Americans abroad and throughout the world than they are about whether or not a future President adheres to Evangelical Christian tenets.
    Consider the reputation your current President, a so-called good, strong, moral Christian has created for the American people in this world. Not a pleasant thought, is it? To say the least, his brand of Christianity is disturbing, and almost has roots in the Roman Catholic attitude toward Gnostics and Cathars in Medieval Europe. " Burn them all. Let God sort them out."
    George junior has certainly done little to bolster my faith in mainline conservative, Evangelical Christianity, who seem to have forgotten to ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Do?".
    Jesus certainly wouldn't be bombing anyone, ruining his reputation throughout the world, denying the basics of medical coverage and sound education to children and others, or allowing greedy bankers, oil barons, credit card issuers, and all other selfish people to function without consequence.
    Nor would he be very tolerant of the Preacher with the Rolex, the Rolls Royce, the Streamliner Private Jet, the mansions, and total contempt for their own interpretation of Non-Believers.
    It also amazes me how many of those same people seem to have skipped over the Biblical Passage, " Judge not, lest thou be judged likewise."
    The American people have far more important things to consider than whether or not Gov. Romney is a Mormon. I've dealt with a number of Mormons in my life, and you know what? I Like 'Em, even though I'm not one myself. They are generally to be found highly moral, honest, caring , devout toward family, and lasting friends to both Mormons and non-Mormons alike.
    Consider this. The late Howard Hughes employed Mormons to handle his financial affairs. Why? He clearly stated himself that they could be trusted not to rip him off. Try saying that about more than a handful of Evangelical Christians we've had in the press over the years for everything from soliciting prostitutes to outright theft, and high living on the generous contributions of a lot of people who really can't afford to lose a dime.
    Another thing. Old Mitt is still married to wife # 1.
    Have a nice day America.

The message, in its entirety, was truly inspiring to me. I felt wonderful at several times during the speech. I have withheld my opinion for months as I have tried to honestly evaluate the candidates but I can hold back no longer. This is one Iowan who will vote for Romney. What an opportunity America has to finally instill a man of honesty, integrity, and capability into the office of presidency. I too will pray for Romney's and America's success.

Mormons beliefs are:

They believe in Gods ( yes plural)

They believe if you are a good mormon when you die you become a god and get your own planet.

They believe the God of earth was a regular man on another planet and he resides near a star called KOLOB

They have special handshakes and secret names so they can find each other after they die.

They wear special secret underwear with secret religious symbols sewn into them that protect them from bullets and other bad things.

All of the following and more are FACTS and can be researched in the 3 books they have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Book of the Law of the Lord.


The Bible is the forth book they use and when Mormon beliefs don't agree with the Bible they say that passage was interpreted wrong.

P.S. They say that Jesus had multiple wives when he was on earth.

Sullivan is obviously biased and a simply hateful man. He is just like the "Bible bashers" who find joy in taking a single verse of scripture out of context and ignore the rest of Holy Writ in order to spin things to their point of view. He knows the meaning of those quotes and he knows he is wrong.

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator."

It sounds to me by Sullivan's own flawed and, truthfully, lame logic, he did not need to go back to February for a "flip-flop". There was one just a few paragraphs away.

He was obviously not listening to the speech for insight, but rather to find something in Romney's own words to ensnare and trap him.

Sullivan is a prime example of why this speech is sadly needed in America today.

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Eph 4:14

Spud, you apparently believe that having no values is the solution?  Taking a stand to have no values is actually your choice of values.  There is this big lie floating around that there are either believers or non-believers in values or in religion.  The fact is, you are a believer in being a non-believer.  Everyone believes something.  Atheism is a conviction to you.  We as a people ought to decide where our values are before the subtlety of those who believe in non-values convert the rest of us to their religion of apathy.

His speech answered nothing much about his Mormon beliefs...as I understand, Mormons belive Jesus was a son of God...not THE SON of God. His dishonesty about hiring illegal immigrants flies in the face of all his rhetoric about faith and values. His recent "firing" of the landscaper was just a political ploy. If he lived what he believes, his beliefs would be more tranparent through his words and deeds, eleiminating the needs for him to haev aver given this speech.

To Andrew Sullivan....

To be blunt, Andrew, you are BLIND!!!  Romney is NOT "flip-flopping" when he said earlier that "a person should not be elected because of his faith" and then in his speech today (6 Dec in TX) that "we need to have a person of faith lead the country".  In the first quote he is clearly speaking about a PARTICULAR religion, ie, Baptist, Catholic, Pentacostal or Moromon, etc.  In today's speech his reference to "faith" is OBVIOUSLY referring to the more GENERAL IDEA of having faith in God.  Are you even TRYING to understand what Romney says or do people in the media not do that anymore?  What's absolutely ironic is that when I clicked on the hyperlink embedded in your oh so brilliant perception of Romney's speech today I found the following George Orwell quote blazed across the top of YOUR beloved "The Daily Dish"....quote, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle".  Ya think??!?!?!?!?!?  If you are a man of REAL character you would immediately retract your statement and issue an apology to Romney.            

If you really want to find out what Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) believe, then find out from the source:
www.mormon.org

Nor Republicans nor Democrats decide what true Americans values are. But you have to be commited to some "values" to run for president. America has "values" already. Those values could be destructives or constructives. And we should be mature enough to know what those values are. A true leader should be also able to sell those values to the american people as constructive values.

The previous writer doesn't even know the difference between "they're" and "theirs", less about "values".

Judge the man(Mitt Romney)by the way he's lived his life. He's probably lead a better "Christian" life than most Evangelicals who judge him. --- Hillary Clinton can call herself a Christian, and would that be enough to convince Evangelical voters? I thought most Evangelicals judged Hillary on Hillary.

I appreciate Romney's speech and the points he was trying to bring across. I think Romney has made room in his speech for everyone of all beliefs, including those who choose not to believe in God. It's tiring to me that Americans choose to attack each other for their life styles, whether they be gay, black, white, muslim, athiest, happy, sad or MORMON! What is so wrong with believing in a high power and living a moral life? Heaven forbid that we employ our freedom to make our own choices. I have not always been a fan of Romney, but more power to him for defending his faith but not feeling inclined to explain his religion. If you're curious about Mormons, use the internet. Let Romney focus on political issues.

I would certainly feel comfortable having Romney as president of the United States.  It would please me to know that my leader would be praying to our Heavenly Father and asking direction in making decisions about my country.

Romney's speech was just what all of us needed to hear.  He eased my mind alot and gave me reason to vote for him.....religion and freedom do go together in our nation!  I am one Presbyterian who will not be afraid to support Gov. Romeney...a religious man of courage, conviction, and honesty.  

There will be NO Peace in the world until we rid it of all religions and religious leaders.....
God is Love

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):